So, the newspapers quoting a government document rather than printing it entirely means that it must be dishonestly distorted?

And the fact it was an ”early draft of the Executive Summary of a document produced by Civil Servants from the Home Office and Cabinet Office.” rather than a ‘policy document’ somehow means we should ignore what is in it and just pretend it never existed?

Sorry, but your entire post is an exercise in sophistry attempting to hide the plain facts of the matter which is that the government secretly and deliberately encouraged immigration into Britain. Perhaps your efforts would be better engaged actually considering the rights and wrongs of that?

Exactly. It has been the “Holy Grail” of Cultural Marxism in the UK to dumb down society at any cost, and for however long it takes. Although Labour in the disguise of ‘New Labour’ is to the political right of Old Labour. These same Yoghurt crunching, Bed wetting, Psuedo-Marxist Dipsticks are determinded to undermine UK society with their stupidity of ‘Multi-culturalism’ and all sorts of other ‘Isms’.

There are those within the Labour movement, TUC and other areas who are determined to move society “Back to the Future” to the days of scargillism, and the loony left. Just looking at the Rent a Mob of the Socialist Workers Party demonstrating outside the Brighton Conference Centre against the Torys is an example of this. Why were they demonstrating – the Torys aren’t even in government. They should have been demonstrating outside Downing Street.

Maybe it was a paid day out to the seaside with beer and sandwiches for the hands out doley scrounging costituency of New Labour!!

Me – I just want my country and society back from the numptyness that is being propagated by Marxist Diptsticks.

@2

All you needed was “it’s political correctness gone mad!” and I could’ve ticked off every phrase in my Big Bumper Book of Right-Wing Clichés. What is it with you lot, can’t you think of anything vaguely original?

3/10. Must try harder.

@Kongoldboy

“So, the newspapers quoting a government document rather than printing it entirely means that it must be dishonestly distorted?”

No. That was a joke based on the newspapers’ claim that something edited out of the executive summary means the authors were hiding something. It’s like goldy or coppery, but with iron.

“And the fact it was an ”early draft of the Executive Summary of a document produced by Civil Servants from the Home Office and Cabinet Office.” rather than a ‘policy document’ somehow means we should ignore what is in it and just pretend it never existed?”

That’s a nice strawman you’ve got there. It just means it doesn’t prove what Labour policy was or wasn’t at any given time, because it wasn’t a statement of policy. This post should be read alongside my last on here, which Sunny headlined Right wingers are living in immigration conspiracy land, which includes more on why this latest conspiracy is just that.

“Sorry, but your entire post is an exercise in sophistry attempting to hide the plain facts of the matter which is that the government secretly and deliberately encouraged immigration into Britain. Perhaps your efforts would be better engaged actually considering the rights and wrongs of that?”

Ooh. Get you. Are the ‘plain facts of the matter’ that this document is proof the government secretly encouraged immigration? Because it isn’t. It’s really, really crappy evidence.

I’ve written more on this, which pulls everything together over at MailWatch in Did the government secretly plot to change the fae of Britain, if you’re interested. I doubt you are though.

@Uncle Vanya:

I have absolutely no idea of what you’re on about. Seriously.

Guys (Kingoldby and Uncle Vanya), I have little, if any, sympathy with the broad political stance generally taken on this site and, if I’m honest, I usually come on it to take the piss but even I think you’re both barking.

Now, take five minutes, re – read what you both posted and run along and get yourselves sectioned, ok? Or are you, in fact, having a “who can use the largest number of idiotic, Daily – Mail inspired cliches in the shortest space” competition? If that’s the case then Uncle Vanya is the winner.

Incidentally, Uncle V, yoghurt usually isn’t crunchy and consumption of it isn’t a reliable indicator of someone’s political viewpoint.

5 cc

Once again you are trying to make a big deal out of the fact that this was not a government policy document. This is extremely disingenuous. You know full well that the only reason that this document came to public attention was because Andrew Neather cited it as the main influence and source that he used when writing a speech for the then immigration minister, Barbara Roche, announcing an about turn in government policy.

You are also using the old leftie trick of bundling up different sorts of immigrants (as different as chalk and cheese) and then speculating about the ‘economic benefits’.

Sure there are economic benefits from Indian html coders. Or doctors. Or Polish builders. But WTF are the economic benefits of bringing in veterans from some Somali warlord’s private army, who don’t speak a word of English? Or more mail order husbands from Mirpur?

I think you missed this reply to you in the last thread.

“Once again you are trying to make a big deal out of the fact that this was not a government policy document.”

Nope. This is the first time. Published this post at my place before I mentioned it in the comments here, and Sunny’s cross-posted it.

“You know full well that the only reason that this document came to public attention was because…”

No. I know full well itwas published. There’s no secret shadowy document that only came to light when it was mentioned (by someone who categorically stated there was no plot, no less), there was a published document that had things edited out of the executive summary in the drafting process. Most of those things made their way into the full published document in one way or another anyway, as I outlined here at MailWatch. There are plenty of social outcomes mentioned in the published document, alongside mentions of the government’s social objectives that are apparently secret and must be cut out.

“You are also using the old leftie trick…”

I’m not using any ‘tricks’ to make claims about economic advantages. As I explained already, I’m pointing out what the government was saying at the time about economic advantages because that has bearing on what government thinking was at the time. Do you see the difference?

You’re still left with some really shitty evidence for a secret plot.

There was no plot. I will accept that. And that those who have highlighted it so much have been trying to make a mountain out of a molehill.

Fine. Now what about these ”immigration dog-whistles” by the Tories?
That accusation is made up too (isn’t it?)

See dog-whistle thread.

Conspiracies you have got to love them
The right believe in some co-ordinated efficient move towards multiculturalism for the reason of gerrymandering votes. In reality most Immigrants vote for the free market, that is certainly true of the 2nd and 3rd generation of immigrant.
The left in a Zionist take over.
Both are barking and should get back to reading their Ludlum novels

5 cc

If there wasn’t a plot, then the only explanation we are left with is that the Labour government was staggeringly incompetent – it lost control of the borders and permitted a massive influx of immigrants for whom it had made no arrangements by way of public services provision. Thus immigrants arrived in communities where there were insufficient resources allocated to housing, health or education. Government had neither planned for them nor funded them.

I’d guess ministers are hoping people DO buy the conspiracy explanation as they’d prefer to be seen as clever schemers than total bozos.

Does your close study of the rhetoric of the time suggest they were daft enough to believe there were economic advantages to be gained from immigration from Somalia?

Or were the anticipated advantages merely ‘social’ – the’yd help to reduce the crime rate, perhaps, or provide role models of moderate Islam?

@Flowerpower:

Woah! So many Daily Mail cliches in such a short comment. They’ve lost control of the borders. Massive influx! Run for your lives!

Sorry. Of course, when you’re given the option between shadowy conspiracy and incompetence, the latter is the most sensible choice. Although I obviously don’t share your assessment of the cataclysmic consequences of immigration.

“Thus immigrants arrived in communities where there were insufficient resources allocated to housing…”

We’re usually talking about Eastern Europeans in relation to this sort of thing. The larger number of Eastern Europeans arriving after the accession of the A8 countries is one example of where the government did cock up, by underestimating the scale and not allocating proper resources. Eastern Europeans, of course, cannot vote in general elections.

“Does your close study of the rhetoric of the time suggest they were daft enough to believe there were economic advantages to be gained from immigration from Somalia?”

Who are you, Rod Liddle? Careful there, you’re sailing very close to the racism whirlpool.

Given that such a large chunk of the Somalian population in the UK are here seeking asylum, I’d guess that reasons for allowing Somalians to live here are compassionate. Just a thought.

“Or were the anticipated advantages merely ’social’ – the’yd help to reduce the crime rate, perhaps, or provide role models of moderate Islam?”

Dangerously close. Careful you don’t get sucked in.

@12

“If there wasn’t a plot, then the only explanation we are left with is that the Labour government was staggeringly incompetent …”

I strongly recommend listening to David Goodhart’s recent Radio 4 programme asking exactly that. Indeed, most of Goodhart’s writing about immigration (largely for Prospect) has been both insightful and based on evidence – rare for this emotive subject.